The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Certificate program in 
Microcomputer Support Specialist.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Upon Board of Regents' Approval


	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #28 on file in the 
			Governance Office, 312 Signersą Hall.




Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98


Approved:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/2/98


				***************


Executive Summary
Certificate, Microcomputer Support Specialist
33 credits


As computers become indispensable in our daily lives, agencies and 
businesses are discovering that providing ongoing support for 
computer users is an absolute necessity.  The critical need for well-
trained professionals with the requisite technical computer 
knowledge and people support skills is becoming every more 
apparent.  Thus, the objective of this Certificate program is to 
provide the essential elements of both technical knowledge and 
interpersonal skills for a new cadre of microcomputer support 
specialists who can fill permanent staff positions, like the new 
State of Alaska Microcomputer/Network Technician I and II, or 
develop private microcomputer support enterprises throughout 
Alaska.

As one of the programs approved last year for funding through the 
President's Reallocation Fund, this program meets the criteria for 
being collaborative statewide, focused on vocational/technical 
training, and utilizing alternative modes of delivery.  The group of 
faculty and staff who compose the committee making this project 
proposal come from all three MAUs.  Microcomputer support 
represents an area of vocational/technical expertise that is 
increasingly desired and needed within the state but which is not 
currently satisfied by any University of Alaska program.  And, there 
is a direct relationship between the requirements of the courses and 
the expected skills and knowledge the student will need on the job; 
the program will be competency based, individualized, and available 
at a distance through a variety of delivery modes.

The program staff developed a questionnaire regarding 
microcomputer classes that was sent to 1247 people in state 
government, educational institutions, libraries, military bases, 
private corporations and businesses including Native corporations:  
257 responses were received for a response rate of 21%.  About 78% 
of the respondents indicated there was a need for a program leading 
to a certificate as a microcomputer support specialist, and 84% said 
it would be helpful to have a person trained in this area working for 
their organization; 58% said, if they were in a position to hire staff, 
they would seek to hire someone with such a certificate.  Finally 
56% said they themselves would be interested in obtaining a 
microcomputer specialist certificate.

A great number of students have already inquired about this 
program, having heard by word of mouth, apparently, of its imminent 
availability.  Extended campus directors, faculty in this area, and 
others have told us that many potential students are waiting to 
enroll.  Therefore, it is anticipated that a sufficient number of 
students will enroll in the program.  In fact, the opposite problem of 
having too many students too quickly may materialize.

Students will be required, at minimum, to complete a 9 credit core 
to earn the Certificate.  If they have prior experience and/or can 
demonstrate their competencies in the required subject area, all the 
remaining credits may be waived; however, many will need to take 
all 33 credits of course work.  Courses are being redesigned for 
distance delivery during the Fall 1997 and Spring 1998 semesters; 
and equivalencies across all three MAUs have been determined.  The 
Certificate will not be available for matriculation until all 
approvals have been achieved hopefully by the Fall 1998 semester.

******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the A.A.S. in 
Microcomputer Support Specialist.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #29 on file in the 
			Governance Office, 312 Signersą Hall.


Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

Approved:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/2/98

				***************


Executive Summary
A.A.S., Microcomputer Support Specialist
60 credits


As computers become indispensable in our daily lives, agencies and 
businesses are discovering that providing ongoing support for 
computer users is an absolute necessity.  The critical need for well-
trained professionals with the requisite technical computer 
knowledge and people support skills is becoming every more 
apparent.  Thus, the objective of this A.A.S. program is to build on 
the Certificate for Microcomputer Support Specialist and provide 
additional skill development in the major area as well as associate 
level general education requirements.  Completion of this A.A.S. 
degree is not a preparation for a computer science baccalaureate 
degree.

As one of the programs approved last year for funding through the 
President's Reallocation Fund, this program meets the criteria for 
being collaborative statewide, focused on vocational/technical 
training, and utilizing alternative modes of delivery.  The group of 
faculty and staff who compose the committee making this project 
proposal come from all three MAUs.  Microcomputer support 
represents an area of vocational/technical expertise that is 
increasingly desired and needed within the state but which is not 
currently satisfied by any University of Alaska program.  And, there 
is a direct relationship between the requirements of the courses and 
the expected skills and knowledge the student will need on the job; 
the program will be competency based, individualized, and available 
at a distance through a variety of delivery modes.

The program staff developed a questionnaire regarding 
microcomputer classes that was sent to 1247 people in state 
government, educational institutions, libraries, military bases, 
private corporations and businesses including Native corporations:  
257 responses were received for a response rate of 21%.  About 78% 
of the respondents indicated there was a need for a program leading 
to a certificate as a microcomputer support specialist, and 84% said 
it would be helpful to have a person trained in this area working for 
their organization; 58% said, if they were in a position to hire staff, 
they would seek to hire someone with such a certificate.  Finally 
56% said they themselves would be interested in obtaining a 
microcomputer specialist certificate.

A great number of students have already inquired about this 
program, having heard by word of mouth, apparently, of its imminent 
availability.  Extended campus directors, faculty in this area, and 
others have told us that many potential students are waiting to 
enroll.  Therefore, it is anticipated that a sufficient number of 
students will enroll in the program.  In fact, the opposite problem of 
having too many students too quickly may materialize.

The A.A.S. will require general education and computer courses 
beyond the Certificate to total 60 credits.  Courses are currently 
being redesigned for distance delivery during the Fall 1997 and 
Spring 1998 semesters; and equivalencies across all three MAUs 
have been determined.  The A.A.S. degree will not be available for 
matriculation until all approvals have been achieved hopefully by the 
Fall 1998 semester.

******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Ph.D. program in Marine 
Biology.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Upon Board of Regentsą Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #44 on file in the 
			Governance Office, 312 Signersą Hall.



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

Approved:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/3/98

				***************

Executive Summary
Ph.D. Degree Program in Marine Biology

We propose a Ph.D. degree program in Marine Biology, to be housed 
within the Graduate Program in Marine Sciences and Limnology 
(GPMSL) and the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (SFOS).  Our 
goals are to attract students with excellent qualifications; offer 
them unique opportunities to conduct research in the Arctic, Bering 
Sea, and Gulf of Alaska regions; help them to develop expertise in 
research through courses and mentorship; facilitate their authorship 
of important contributions to Marine Biology, increase SFOS 
capability to address significant problems of Alaska's marine life; 
and educate professionals who are especially well-qualified to 
address these problems.  The Strategic Plan:  UAF 2000 states that 
the university should "become the world's leader in arctic research 
and graduate education."  Assuming that this will remain an 
important UAF goal into the next century, a new Marine Biology Ph.D. 
program will contribute by attracting outstanding students, who 
will conduct high-quality research in the Arctic and elsewhere.

The doctoral degree program will educate students using both course 
work and a research-based thesis.  The program is flexibly designed 
and modeled after the successful GPMSL doctoral program in 
Oceanography.  Like all biological fields, Marine Biology requires 
collaborative research in many different areas in order to 
understand the demands placed upon the organism and how it has 
adapted to the environment.  It can include studies in modern 
methods of molecular biology as well as classical methods of 
physiology or genetics.  Courses offered by the other UAF graduate 
programs, in addition to a wide range of courses within SFOS, will 
enable Marine Biology Ph.D. students to attain both breadth and depth 
of knowledge.  The opportunities for collaboration with researchers 
in Oceanography and Fisheries within SFOS, and with faculty from 
the Biology and Wildlife Department, the Department of Chemistry 
and Biochemistry, and other UAF departments and institutes will be 
especially valuable to Marine Biology students.

The strong, extramurally-funded Marine Biology research programs 
of GPMSL faculty are crucial to the success of the Marine Biology 
Ph.D. program.  SFOS has several outstanding research facilities for 
marine biological research which provide opportunities to conduct 
research at a wide range of sites along Alaska's coastline.  These 
include the Seward Marine Center; the Kasitsna Bay Laboratory, 
located near Seldovia; the Juneau Center for Fisheries and Ocean 
Sciences; and the Fisheries Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak.  
Marine Biology Ph.D. students will also have the opportunity to use 
the Seward SeaLife Center, which is being built by a private 
foundation and will open in the Spring of 1998.  The SeaLife center 
will have state-of-the-art research facilities for captive studies of 
marine mammals and sea birds and will also support field research 
in the nearby fjords.

Five students transferred to the Interdisciplinary Studies Ph.D. 
program in 1995 to pursue studies in Marine Biology, with major 
advisors and a "home base" in GPMSL.  Four of these students have 
completed the program and moved on to professional positions; one 
is still in progress.  Four additional students, now enrolled in either 
Oceanography, have expressed interest in transferring to the Marine 
Biology Ph.D. program if it becomes available.  SFOS and GPMSL have 
the faculty, the courses, the facilities, and the experience to offer 
an excellent Ph.D. program in Marine Biology without additional cost 
to the university.

*******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following policy on 
Stacked and Cross-listed courses to be included in the UAF Catalog 
under the Course Numbers section of the Course Descriptions (p. 133 
of current UAF Catalog) and to amend the 600-699--Graduate 
courses paragraph as follows:

"A few well-qualified undergraduates may be admitted to graduate 
courses with APPROVAL OF THE INSTRUCTOR.  [[the permission of the 
head of the department in which the course is offered.  Admission to 
graduate courses cross-listed with undergraduate courses requires 
graduate standing or permission of the instructor.]]  A STUDENT MAY 
NOT APPLY SUCH A COURSE TO BOTH A BACCALAUREATE AND A 
GRADUATE DEGREE."  


				***************

Stacked and Cross-listed Courses

The same course is sometimes offered by more than one discipline.  
Such offerings are referred to as "cross-listed" courses and are 
designated in the class listings by "cross-listed with _______".

Courses are also sometimes offered simultaneously at different 
levels (100/200 or 400/600, for example) with higher level credit 
requiring additional effort and possibly higher order prerequisites 
from the student.  Such courses are referred to as "Stacked" courses 
and are designated in the class listings by "Stacked with _____".  In 
the case of 400/600 level stacked courses, graduate standing or 
permission of the instructor is required for graduate enrollment and 
a higher level of effort and performance is required on the part of 
students earning graduate credit.

Courses simultaneously stacked and cross-listed will be designated 
in the class listing as "stacked with ______  and cross-listed with 
________".

In all cases, the course syllabus (not the catalog) must stipulate the 
course content and requirements for each level and/or discipline. 
The catalog should indicate if there is a difference in content.

				***************

Note:  this proposal extends, modifies and partially rescinds Senate 
policy concerning double listing of 400/600 courses enacted on Feb. 
14, 1994 during Meeting # 47.


	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	As more departments add 400/600 courses, 
		a clearer catalog description of this method of combining 
		offerings is needed, as is a better way of designating 
		them than the "same as ____"  used in the current UAF 
		catalog.  Similar comments pertain to other stacked 
		offerings.  Students need to understand the nature of 
		these courses and the difference between levels of 
		credit deriving from them.

		This proposal will eliminate the prohibition against 
		undergraduates (or anyone else not already enrolled in a 
		graduate program) taking 400/600 courses for graduate 
		credit which is embodied in policy enacted by the Senate 
		in meeting #47.  There seems to be little logic in 
		treating these graduate offerings differently from all 
		others and it is often desirable to encourage 
		exceptionally well-qualified undergraduates to expand 
		their horizons by taking graduate courses.

		It should be noted that the additional effort required for 
		higher level credit must be clearly spelled out in the 
		course syllabus.  This reduces the opportunity for later 
		conflicts by providing students with a clear 
		understanding of the differences in requirements and 
		grading.  This will be given serious consideration in the 
		approval process for such courses.



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

Approved:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/3/98


*******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION PASSED (AS AMENDED)
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate has reviewed the draft course definitions  
submitted by the UA Faculty Alliance and moves to make the 
following recommendations:


CAPS 	= Insertion
[[    ]] = Deletion

DRAFT

A.  Course Numbering System

Each course offered by the University is identified by the 
department designator and a three-digit course number.  The 
designator commonly abbreviates the name of a discipline or 
department (for example, ENGL for English).  In general, the first 
numeral of the three-digit course number indicates the course level 
and the year in which the course is ordinarily taken.  For example, 
ENGL 111 is a 100-level course and is ordinarily taken by first-year 
(freshman) students, and ENGL 318 is a 300-level course taken by 
third-year (junior) students. 


B.  Course Level Expectations

Students are expected to demonstrate learning skills commensurate 
with the appropriate course level, and are expected to meet, prior to 
registering, prerequisites for all courses as listed with the course 
descriptions.  Prerequisites indicate the preparation and/or 
background necessary to undertake academic study.  If a student has 
not taken and passed the necessary prerequisites, but feels 
confident of performing the course work, the student may request 
permission from the instructor of the course to enroll in the class.  
An instructor withdrawal may be initiated for those students who 
enroll without either prerequisites oR[[f]] instructor permission.  
Courses numbered 001-049 are career development courses intended 
to fulfill special needs of students or the community and are not 
designed as preparation for 100-level college work.  They are 
offered for Continuing Education Units (CEU) or for non-credit.  
Courses numbered 050-099 usually cover basic or developmental 
material and are intended to help prepare students to enter 100-
level college courses.  They are applicable to some vocational 
certificates.  The 100-level courses generally require learning basic 
concepts.  The 200-, [[level]] 300-, and 400-level courses require 
increasing sophistication in the ability to extract, summarize, 
evaluate, and apply relevant class material.  The 500-level courses 
are specifically designed for professional development at the post-
baccalaureate level, while the 600-level courses for advanced 
degrees demand rigorous analysis, synthesis, and research skills. 


C.  Non-degree and Preparatory Courses

001-049:  Career development or community interest courses.  

Courses are intended to fulfill special needs of students or the 
community and are not designed as preparation for 100-level college 
work.  Career development courses are offered for Continuing 
Education Units (CEU).  One CEU is granted for satisfactory 
completion of 10 contact hours of classroom instruction or for 20 
contact hours of laboratory or clinical instruction.  Community 
interest courses ARE not offered for credit.  THEY ARE not applicable 
to any degree requirements (even by petition)

050-099.  Remedial or Preparatory Courses.  

Courses applicable to some vocational certificates but not to any 
associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees, master's degrees, or 
professional certificates.  These are developmental courses that 
provide supplemental preparation for introductory college courses.


D.  Academic Credit Courses

Lower Division Courses

100-199:  Freshman-level courses.  

These courses are applicable to ALL certificates, associate, and 
baccalaureate degrees. They introduce a field of knowledge and/or 
develop basic skills. These are usually foundation or survey courses. 


200-299:  Sophomore-level courses. 

These courses are applicable to ALL certificates, associate, and 
baccalaureate degrees. They provide more depth than 100-level 
courses and/or build upon 100-level courses.  These courses may 
connect foundation or survey courses with advanced work in a given 
field, require previous college experience, or develop advanced 
skills. 


Upper Division Courses

As a general guideline upper division courses require at least junior 
standing or equivalent experience in addition to any stated 
prerequisites.  The student is expected to have adequate 
preparations and background to complete courses at this level.  
[[Freshman and sophomore students are required to obtain special 
permission to take any upper division courses.]]  Upper-division 
courses may not be used as prerequisites for lowER-division 
courses.


300-399:  Junior-level courses. 

These courses are applicable to [[associate and]] baccalaureate 
degrees, and may BE APPLICABLE TO SOME ASSOCIATE DEGREES.  
THEY MAY also be applied to graduation requirements for some 
master's degrees with prior approval of the student's Graduate Study 
Committee.  They may not be applied to both a baccalaureate and a 
master's degree.  These courses build upon previous course work and 
require familiarity with the concepts, methods and vocabulary of the 
discipline.


400-499:  Senior-level courses. 

These courses are applicable to the baccalaureate degree and may be 
applicable to some associates degrees.  They may also be applied to 
graduation requirements for some master's degrees with prior 
approval of the student's Graduate Study Committee.  They may not 
be applied to both a baccalaureate and a master's degree.  These 
courses require the ability to analyze, synthesize, compare and 
contrast, research, create, innovate, develop, elaborate, transform, 
and/or apply course material to solving complex problems.  These 
courses [[are]] generally [[supported by]] REQUIRE a substantial [[body 
of]] BACKGROUND OF STUDY IN lower-level courses.


600-699:  Graduate-level courses.  

These courses are for post-baccalaureate study towards advanced 
degrees with approval of the student's Graduate Study Committee.  A 
few well qualified undergraduates may be admitted to graduate 
courses with APPROVAL OF THE INSTRUCTOR. [[appropriate approval 
in the department in which the course is offered.  Admission to 
graduate courses cross-listed with undergraduate courses requires 
graduate standing or permission of the instructor.]]  THESE COURSES 
MAY BE USED TO MEET GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 
BACCALAUREATE DEGREES UPON APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN 
WHICH THE COURSE IS OFFERED.  A STUDENT MAY NOT APPLY SUCH A 
COURSE [[These courses may not be applied]] to both a baccalaureate 
and a graduate degree.


D.  Professional Development Courses.

500-599:  Professional development courses. 

These courses are intended as post-baccalaureate education for 
various professional groups who desire to continue their education 
at a level distinct from graduate-level education.  Courses are 
neither graduate nor undergraduate in nature.  [[They are not 
applicable to any grading system.]]  These 500-level courses shall 
not be stacked with any credit courses numbered 050-499 or 600-
699.  NO [[The]] 500-level (special topics and independent study) 
courses shall [[not]] apply toward any UNIVERSITY degree, 
UNIVERSITY certification or UNIVERSITY credential program, and are 
not interchangeable with 600-level courses for graduate degree 
programs.  Courses may be graded Pass/No Pass or, if the course 
includes an evaluation component, by letter grading.  The 
measurement of student effort is indicated by professional 
development credits.  One credit requires at least 12.5 classroom 
contact hours, two credits at least 25 classroom contact hours, 
three credits at least 37.5 classroom contact hours, etc.  These 
courses will be provided on a self-support basis.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	Curricular Affairs and the Graduate & 
		Professional Curricular Affairs reviewed the entire text 
		of the motion and made several recommendations, by 
		section.

		Upper division courses--The committee recommended 
		that the third sentence be deleted.  In the opinion of the 
		committee, this language is unduly restrictive of student 
		choice, as currently UAF lower-division students do take 
		upper division courses without "special" permission.

		300-399:  Junior-level courses.--The committee 
		recommended that the phrase marked for deletion (also 
		be applied to graduation requirements for some master's 
		degrees with prior approval of the student's Graduate 
		Study Committee) be retained.  This should be reinstated 
		in the text and transformed into a sentence:  "They may 
		also be applied to graduation requirements....."  The 
		reasoning of the committee was that under current UAF 
		policy, graduate students are allowed to apply a junior-
		level course to degree requirements, with the approval of 
		their committee.

		400-499:  Senior-level courses.--The committee 
		recommended the retention of the phrase marked 
		deletion: (and may be applicable to some associates 
		degrees).  The committee also found this proposal to be 
		unusually restrictive.  Under current UAF policy, students 
		may use senior-level courses to meet associate degree 
		requirements.

		500-599:  Professional development courses.--The 
		committee recommended the deletion of the third 
		sentence.  In the opinion of the committee, this 
		statement is unnecessary.  The committee also 
		recommended changes to the fifth sentence.  The 
		argument for this change was to improve clarity.

		600-699:  Graduate-level courses.--Change suggested by 
		the UAF Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs 
		Committee.

		The prohibition on courses being used for both 
		baccalaureate and advanced degrees is not to be applied 
		to courses listed in a catalog as repeatable.



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to modify the date of Freshman Low 
Grade notification to the 6th Friday following the first day of 
classes.  

	EFFECTIVE:   	Fall 1998

	RATIONALE:  	The present policy, which provides for 
		reporting of low grades at the end of the 4th week 
		of classes, was set to coincide with the last day to 
		withdraw.  At that time, the deadline for freshman 
		withdrawals was the end of the 6th week of classes.  
		In an action during the 1996-97 academic year, 
		however, the senate changed the withdrawal deadline 
		to the 9th Friday after classes begin, without changing 
		the date for freshman low grade notification.



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

Approved:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/2/98

*******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF UNITED ACADEMICS ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS
1/22/98


Whereas United Academics is a democratic organization founded to 
	protect the professional integrity of the faculty;

Whereas United Academics is an organization with a profound 
	interest in maintaining effective faculty governance 
	throughout the University system;

Whereas United Academics and the UAF Faculty Senate both strongly 
	support academic freedom;

Whereas both the UAF Faculty Senate and United Academics are 
	democratically run organizations acting on behalf of the 
	faculty for complementary interests;

Whereas United Academics takes an active part in constructively 
	critiquing and advising the administration of the University of 
	Alaska on a wide variety of matters of interest to faculty 
	members;

Whereas United Academics seeks to support student and staff 
	constituencies in matters of mutual interest;

Whereas both United Academics and the UAF Faculty Senate share an 
	intense interest in current and future funding of the 
	University, the consequences to academic programs of that 
	funding, and the application of those resources to the living 
	and working conditions of the faculty and their families;

Whereas both United Academics and the UAF Faculty Senate 
	recognize the critical central role of faculty governance in 
	assuring academic quality;

Whereas the issue of declining faculty morale is of great concern to 
	both United Academics and the UAF Faculty Senate;

Whereas there is an emerging and highly successful working 
	relationship between United Academics and the UAF Faculty 
	Senate in areas of mutual concern;

Whereas United Academics has been engaged for well over a year in 
	a good faith effort to negotiate contract with the 
	administration of the University of Alaska;

Therefore be it resolved that the UAF Faculty Senate shares the 
	United Academics position protecting the faculty's rights and 
	responsibilities in curricular review, assurance of the quality 
	of academic programs, and granting of degrees at the 
	University;

Furthermore be it resolved that the UAF Faculty Senate supports the 
	efforts of United Academics to successfully negotiate a fair, 
	equitable, and timely collective bargaining agreement with 
	the administration of the University of Alaska.


Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

*******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves that drafting of the UAF academic 
calendar be the responsibility of the Senate's administrative 
committee, based upon information supplied by the Office of the 
Registrar.  The draft calendar would then be approved by the UAF 
Faculty Senate, the UAF Staff Council, and ASUAF, with the UAF 
Coordinating Committee responsible for coordinating the three 
reviews and submitting the completed calendar to the chancellor.  
The final draft submitted to the Chancellor cannot violate relevant 
UAF rules regarding the number of days instruction and related rules 
unless the UAF Faculty Senate provides a needed one-time 
dispensation required by extraordinary circumstances.


	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The UAF Governance Coordinating Committee 
		has failed to abide by certain UAF rules regarding the 
		calendar or to ask the Senate for revisions to the rules.  
		Neither has it submitted its drafts to the three 
		governance groups for their concurrence.  Recent policies 
		by the Board of Regents have made it increasingly 
		difficulty to maintain our high level of student contact 
		hours and still satisfy the Regents' demand that we 
		specify the exact day being added to the calendar to make 
		up for the loss of instruction on Civil Rights Day.


Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98

Approved*:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor			Date:  3/16/98

 *With understanding that Senate motion does not put UAF at variance with BOR policy/action(s).  

*******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the proposed amendments 
to the Faculty Alliance Constitution.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98


				***************


((   ))   = deletions
CAPS = additions

				  University of Alaska
				   FACULTY ALLIANCE

				       Constitution
				   Proposed Revisions


ARTICLE I.     INTENT

It is the intent of the Board of Regents: l) that the faculty shall 
share in the governance of the university, 2) that shared governance 
is an integral part of the business of the university, and 3) that 
participators in shared governance are empowered by the Board of 
Regents to carry out their governance responsibilities to the best of 
their abilities without interference or fear of reprisal.


ARTICLE II.     NAME

The Board of Regents hereby establishes a mechanism for faculty 
system governance consisting of an Alliance, hereinafter "Alliance."


ARTICLE III.    AUTHORITY, PURPOSES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. 	Authority

	The Alliance receives its authority by policy 03.01.01 of the 
	University of Alaska Board of Regents which derives its 
	authority from the Constitution and statutes of the State of 
	Alaska.  The Alliance shall carry out its functions subject to 
	the authority of the Board of Regents and the President of the 
	University.

B. 	Purposes

	1. 	Representation

		To provide official representation for the faculty of the 
		University of Alaska in matters which affect the general 
		welfare of the University and its educational purposes 
		and effectiveness. 

	2. 	Consultation

		To provide consultation to the President of the 
		University and the Board of Regents ((on academic 
		matters and faculty welfare issues)).

	3. 	Communication

		To serve as an instrument by which information which is 
		of interest and concern to the university system faculty 
		may be freely collected, disseminated, coordinated, and 
		discussed.

C.	Responsibilities

	The Alliance recognizes the faculty of the individual academic 
	major administrative units as having the primary 
	responsibility and authority for recommending the 
	establishment of degree requirements; implementing the 
	degree requirements; establishing the curriculum, the subject 
	matter and methods for instruction; determining when 
	established degree requirements are met; and recommending to 
	the President of the Board of Regents the granting of degrees 
	thus achieved. The Alliance shall have AN advisory and 
	coordinating role in academic affairs; no action of the Alliance 
	shall abridge individual academic major administrative unit's 
	authority in academic matters OR BARGAINING UNIT AUTHORITY 
	REGARDING SUBJECTS OF MANDATORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

	When issues have statewide impact, the responsibilities of the 
	Alliance may include, but are not limited to: 1) coordination on 
	matters relating to academic affairs such as academic 
	program review; the addition, deletion or merging of academic 
	programs; curriculum; subject matter and methods of 
	instruction, those aspects of student life relating to the 
	educational process such as degree requirements, grading 
	policy, course coordination and transfer, student probation and 
	suspension, standards of admission and scholastic standards; 
	and faculty welfare issues, including, but not limited to 
	compensation, benefits, appointments, reappointments and 
	termination, workload, promotions, the granting of tenure, 
	dismissal, ethics, and 2) other matters relating to the general 
	welfare of the university, its educational purposes and 
	effectiveness.

	Representatives shall promote maximum dissemination of 
	information to the local faculty senates and before voting in 
	the Alliance.


ARTICLE IV.    MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION

A.	Membership

	The membership of the Alliance shall consist of three faculty 
	each from the University of Alaska Anchorage, University of 
	Alaska Fairbanks and University of Alaska Southeast.

	If issues require special knowledge, one or more of the three 
	votes from each campus may be designated to alternate faculty 
	members.

B. 	Selection

	Representatives to the Alliance shall be selected in such a 
	manner as prescribed by the UAA Faculty Senate, the UAF 
	Faculty Senate and the UAS Faculty Council, hereinafter "local 
	faculty governance groups".

C. 	Term of service

	The term of service shall be one year.

D. 	Recall of members

	Any member may be recalled by the local faculty governance 
	group by which the member was chosen. The method of recall 
	shall be determined by the local faculty governance group. That 
	local faculty governance group shall select a replacement to 
	complete the term of office.

E. 	Official Spokesperson

	1.	Election

	The official spokesperson of the Alliance is the Alliance Chair.  
	The Chair shall be elected by and from the voting membership 
	by a majority vote, with at least one vote  from each MAU 
	required.

	2.	Duties

	The Alliance Chair shall a) preside over all meetings of the 
	Alliance and b) represent the Alliance, except that the Chair is  
	required to present majority and minority opinions regardless 
	of personal opinion. The chair may delegate these duties to 
	another Alliance member.

F. 	Task Forces

	The Alliance may establish task forces independently or in 
	response to requests of the Board of Regents or the President 
	of the University to consider complex system wide issues 
	relating primarily to academic matters or faculty welfare 
	issues.

	Issues and suggestions of the task force, from whatever 
	source, shall be referred to local faculty senates and council 
	before action occurs at the Alliance level.


ARTICLE V.     MEETINGS

A. 	Regular and special meetings

	The Alliance shall have ((four)) A MINIMUM OF EIGHT regular 
	meetings during the academic year. At least once per 
	semester, the Alliance shall meet with the President of the 
	University to identify system issues and plan for the coming 
	year.  Special Alliance meetings may be called by the Board of 
	Regents, the President of the University, the Chair of the 
	Alliance, or on petition of one-third of the membership of the 
	Alliance.

B.	Voting

	Voting shall be by simple majority of the full voting 
	membership to include at least one member from each MAU, 
	except for amendments to the Alliance constitution or bylaws. 
	Amendments to membership rights require a unanimous vote.

	Representatives may defer voting pending action by local 
	faculty senates and council on the issue.


ARTICLE VI.     QUORUM

A minimum of a simple majority of the voting membership to include 
at least one member from each MAU shall constitute a quorum.


ARTICLE VII.    PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

The parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's 
Rules of Order.


ARTICLE VIII.   CONSTITUTIONS AND BYLAWS, AMENDMENTS, 
APPROVAL

A. 	Constitutions and bylaws

	The constitution and bylaws, once passed by the Alliance, shall 
	be transmitted to the President of the University for approval 
	and to the Board of Regents for action. Copies of the Alliance 
	constitution and bylaws shall be maintained in the system 
	governance office.

B. 	Amendments; distribution prior to voting

	Amendments to the constitution and bylaws shall be sent to 
	Alliance members and to the local faculty senates and council 
	at least 30 days prior to the Alliance meeting at which they 
	will be considered. Amendments to the constitution require 
	seven Alliance member votes.


ARTICLE IX.     REVIEW AND TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSALS

A. 	Review

	Submission of administrative proposals and issues affecting 
	the statewide university system faculty shall be in accordance 
	with University Regulation 03.01.01. Those administrative 
	proposals submitted in the summer months shall be acted upon 
	by the local faculty senates and council, and the Alliance by 
	October 15. Proposals relating to faculty requiring immediate 
	implementation for compliance with state or federal law shall 
	be submitted to the Faculty Alliance for review, and may be 
	implemented prior to Alliance action but do not represent 
	official action until the local senates and council are involved 
	in the actions.

B. 	Transmittal to the President

	The system governance executive officer shall submit the 
	original proposal in writing, together with faculty governance 
	input, including majority and minority viewpoints, to the 
	President of the University for information or action.

C. 	Transmittal to the Board of Regents

	The Chair of the Alliance shall present Alliance views. The 
	Chair shall present the minority viewpoint to the Board of 
	Regents if requested by the minority in writing to the Chair 
	before the meeting.


ARTICLE X.     ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF REGENTS

A. 	Action by the President

	The President of the University shall, in writing, approve, 
	disapprove, or modify an Alliance action, and notify the Chair 
	and the system governance executive officer within forty-five 
	(45) days of receiving notification of the action by the system 
	governance executive officer.

B. 	Modifications by the President

	The President of the University may modify an Alliance action 
	if the modification does not effectively contravene or nullify 
	the purpose or principle involved in the action.

C.  	Disapproval's

	The President of the University shall inform the Alliance of 
	the reasons for any disapproval or modification within one 
	month of disapproving or modifying an Alliance action.

D.  	Board of Regents notification and action

	Alliance actions which are modified or disapproved by the 
	President of the University, together with the statement of 
	reasons, shall be placed on the next Board of Regents' meeting 
	agenda for the information of the Board if requested by the 
	Alliance.  At the request of either the President of the 
	University or the Alliance, the Alliance action which has been 
	modified or disapproved shall be brought before the Board for 
	action.  The decision of the Board of Regents is final.


ARTICLE XI.     HANDBOOK

The Alliance shall annually submit a directory of Alliance members, 
a description of the Alliance and how it works, and the annual 
Alliance calendar to the system governance executive officer for 
inclusion in the governance handbook. This handbook shall be 
distributed to the Board of Regents and to the shared governance 
groups.


ARTICLE XII.    REPORTS

The Alliance shall ((annually)) prepare ((a)) reportS of activities TO 
THE BOARD OF REGENTS PRIOR TO EACH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF 
REGENTS.  ((This)) THESE reportS shall be submitted to the system 
governance executive officer for compilation into ((a)) single 
((annual)) reportS of governance activities for submission to the 
President of the University and the Board of Regents.  The system 
governance executive officer shall maintain Alliance ELECTRONIC 
communications ((via vax, the vax bulletin board)) and prepare 
system governance news for inclusion in ((vax)) ELECTRONIC and 
printed newsletters.

******************

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on 
February 9, 1998:


MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to affirm the Faculty Alliance motion 
passed on January 22.  It is imperative that there be faculty 
representation on a systemwide Presidential search committee.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately



Signed:  John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate  	Date:  2/11/98


				***************


MOTION:
=======

"The Faculty Alliance of the University of Alaska, by unanimous vote, 
expresses its  astonishment and deep regret that the University of 
Alaska's Board of Regents intent to proceed on its own to screen, 
interview, and select the University's next president while offering 
only token participation to the University's faculty.  Should this 
decision stand in the form implied by the Board's motion of 14 
January, 1998, it will do harm to the morale of the academic 
institution, demean its reputation, and make more difficult the work 
of the new president of the Regents' institution as he or she 
struggles to gain the respect of its faculty and become president of 
the University of Alaska.  These are not the attributes of leadership 
we expect of the Board of Regents and the procedure would call into 
question the academic standards of any person who would accept the 
position as president. We urge you to consider that a successful 
search cannot be defined merely by the attributes of the individual 
who accepts the position.  Of at least as great relevance to a 
successful search is a process that unites the university community 
in a common purpose, resulting in a president with broad- based 
support among the various university constituencies.  In the end, a 
successful search is one in which the process ultimately forges a 
stronger and more resilient institution.  In the end, a successful 
search is one in which the process is fully integrated with the 
principles of shared governance.  This action is effective January 
22, 1998."


Rationale:

A. 	It is the general practice of most colleges and universities to 
	form presidential search committees out of representatives 
	from their diverse constituent groups:  faculty, staff, 
	administrators, students, community representatives, and 
	members of the board. The president of our University will be 
	working with all of these groups and their collective 
	assessment should be allowed to narrow the pool of candidates 
	to those whom all or most of these groups could work with 
	comfortably and profitably in the years to come.

	Further, most prospective candidates expect to deal with 
	search committees of this type.  What message is sent to the 
	candidates when the Board is its own search committee?  (1) 
	It does not trust or respect the judgment of its own personnel.  
	(2) It and it alone will be making many of the decisions which 
	this person will be executing.  (3) It will be micro-managing 
	the operations of the University.

B. 	The Board may find that its search procedure discourages and 
	alienates able candidates, who are looking for a cooperative 
	and supportive environment.  This is especially true when they 
	will be faced with the fiscal and organizational challenges of 
	this university.

C. 	Finally, this action of the Board harms the morale of the 
	University's faculty.  To be excluded in this way from the 
	presidential search speaks eloquently to the University 
	community of the Board's evaluation of faculty.  The Board's 
	action says they, not we, are the university.  It is the Board's 
	vision, not our shared vision that will determine the 
	University's shape in the years to come.